You are here

Interior Department's Proposal To Open Offshore Areas To Drilling Could Impact National Park System

Share

Concern that units of the National Park System, such as Padre Island National Seashore, could be put at risk by increased oil and gas leasing offshore was voiced Thursday after Interior Secretary Zinke outlined a five-year leasing plan/Rebecca Latson

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's announcement Thursday that the Trump administration intends to open up some coastal areas to oil and gas leasing drew immediate condemnation from the National Parks and Conservation Association, which fears that could adversely impact national seashores and parks.

“Responsibly developing our energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf in a safe and well-regulated way is important to our economy and energy security, and it provides billions of dollars to fund the conservation of our coastlines, public lands and parks,” Secretary Zinke said. “Today's announcement lays out the options that are on the table and starts a lengthy and robust public comment period. Just like with mining, not all areas are appropriate for offshore drilling, and we will take that into consideration in the coming weeks. The important thing is we strike the right balance to protect our coasts and people while still powering America and achieving American Energy Dominance."

But NPCA officials feared the five-year plan outlined by the secretary could greatly impact the park system, and pointed to past oil spills that did just that.

“National Parks Conservation Association opposes this sweeping proposal to open waters off our national parks for drilling. For the first time in decades, the waters, wildlife and local economies of coastal parks like Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina and Channel Islands National Park in California will be at risk to the dangers of drilling," said Nick Lund, the park advocacy group's senior manager for conservation programs.

“Communities surrounding our 88 coastal national parks, including Santa Barbara, Beach, Charleston and Baltimore, have formally opposed offshore drilling and exploration," he added. "National park lands and waters are imperiled from spills that inevitably happen when we industrialize our oceans with oil and gas production."

Mr. Lund noted that in 1969 Channel Islands was impacted by a spill of 200,000 gallons, while Alaskan national parks including Kenai Fjords and Katmai "still experience the Exxon Valdez spill impacts three decades later."

"And wildlife and recreation at Gulf Islands National Seashore continue to suffer the effects of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill, which cost coastal communities $22 billion in lost revenue," he added. "We cannot let the future of our coastal national parks include tar balls on Cape Cod’s beaches or oil-soaked birds at Point Reyes."

Also critical of Mr. Zinke's announcement was U.S. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee.

“President Trump wants you to know his oil rigs are bigger and work better than anybody else’s,” Rep. Grijalva said. “This will do nothing to put us on a sustainable energy path or decrease prices for Americans. Trump’s plan means more oil drilled here and then sold overseas. Oil companies get the profits while towns from Washington to California and Maine to Florida bear the enormous costs we know are coming.”

But Rep. Rob Bishop, the Utah Republican who chairs the committee, praised the move.

“The previous administration’s approach to offshore development started from the premise of considering ‘as little as possible.’ The Trump administration starts from the premise of considering ‘as much as possible.’ American energy dominance will only be achieved by taking the latter approach," said Mr. Bishop.

The Draft Proposed Program outlined by the Interior secretary includes "47 potential lease sales in 25 of the 26 planning areas – 19 sales off the coast of Alaska, 7 in the Pacific Region, 12 in the Gulf of Mexico, and 9 in the Atlantic Region. This is the largest number of lease sales ever proposed for the National OCS Program’s 5-year lease schedule."

“By proposing to open up nearly the entire (Outer Continental Shelf) for potential oil and gas exploration, the United States can advance the goal of moving from aspiring for energy independence to attaining energy dominance,” said Vincent DeVito, counselor for energy policy at Interior. “This decision could bring unprecedented access to America’s extensive offshore oil and gas resources and allows us to better compete with other oil-rich nations.”

Interior staff noted that "(I)nclusion of an area in the DPP is not a final indication that it will be included in the approved program or offered in a lease sale, because many decision points still remain. By proposing to open these areas for consideration, the Secretary ensures that he will receive public input and analysis on all of the available OCS to better inform future decisions on the National OCS Program. Prior to any individual lease sale in the future, BOEM will continue to incorporate new scientific information and stakeholder feedback in its reviews to further refine the geographic scope of the lease areas."

NPCA staff, fearing the worst, noted that the country's coastal areas are "home to 88 national parks, including icons like Acadia, Biscayne, and Channel Islands national parks, which protect unique coastal and marine environments. National seashores such as Cape Hatteras, Point Reyes, and Cape Cod serve as vacation destinations for beachgoers, whale watchers and birding enthusiasts. And historical sites including Fort Sumter National Monument, New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park and Cabrillo National Monument remind us of the important role our coastlines played in our shared American history."

The draft plan includes a 60-day public comment period, which NPCA considered too short. The group said it would join other organizations in requesting an extension, and would urge the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to hold additional hearings in coastal communities to hear from the national park communities, fishing businesses, and others who would be most affected by offshore leasing and development.

“In addition to its proposal for offshore drilling," said Mr. Lund, "the administration has signaled its desire to weaken safety measures developed in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. Such safeguards are crucial and commonsense measures to prevent future economic and environmental devastation.

“We must not forget past mistakes. We must make smarter decisions for our oceans and coastal national parks so that our children and grandchildren can visit and experience these places unspoiled."

Comments

A comment from Eric minimizes the effects of [to quote Lee] " Exxon Valdez, the Gulf spill a couple of years ago, spills along the California coast -- ALL still having deleterious effects on shorelines and habitats long after they had been supposedly "cleaned up."

Go through any photo essay about the effects on birds and other wildlife, underwater effects on the marine environment, and so forth. Spend some time this weekend, and explain to your grandkids why it is "miniscule" and explain " the massive benefits of a healthy oil and gas industry and the resulting low energy prices."


Rick, without the oil and gas industry and other fossil fuels, you would be living like a caveman.  Your challange to talk about those things with my grandchildren is a piece of cake.  Heck, they probably already understand it. 


Oil & gas companies are in the business of making money for themselves and their shareholders. Period.  I was told this by a person who has worked decades in the oil & gas industry.  Drilling more leases made available doesn't automatically mean more jobs.  Energy companies are running leaner operations in order to open up cash flow, and layoffs are still occurring in the energy industry.  They don't particularly care where the next big find is located, if they can get to it with minimal costs.  I suppose it would be one thing if the energy was really needed here at home, but companies are shipping oil, gas and coal abroad, which benefits nobody except the energy company and their relatively small group of shareholders, at the expense of trashing our public lands.  I doubt opening up more leases so close to the units in our national park system is going to benefit us in the long run.


Yes, without fossil fuels we would be "living like a caveman."  But there are really many of us out here who wish that wisdom in their extraction and use could take precedence over profit.  That's why we do all we can as individuals to warm or cool our homes in ways that will use as little fuel as possible given the current technology available while seeking better alternatives.  We do the same when we choose which vehicles we buy and how we drive them.

There really are other things out there to consider than how much money oil companies and their investors will manage to extract from us and from our world. 


"Oil & gas companies are in the business of making money for themselves and their shareholders Period" Oh really? Do they want to make money? Of course, So does just about every other business in the world. Businesses which wouldn't exist without oil and gas. But more importantly they are also the industry that keeps you and I alive.
As for benefiting only a small number of shareholders, the oil and gas industry has done more to improve the lives of people than perhaps any other industry in existence and at this point we (that includes you) couldn't survive without it.

First, that small number of shareholders you mention includes nearly everyone with a 401k or pension plan, but that is just the very tip of the iceberg and also very short sighted.
Stop and take a look around your home and think about how every item in it is manufactured. Unless you are a rock collector (and also living under one) you would be hard pressed to name a single item that wasn't made with the help of the oil and gas industry. You certainly wouldn't have your camera, your computer or your vehicle without it. You also wouldn't have hospitals, medicine, food, heat for your home, the clothing on your back or clean water to drink. Nor would you have electric cars, wind turbines and solar panels. While living in the stone age may have some romantic appeal to some, it wouldn't be possible given the current world population.
So before you condemn the oil and gas industry stop and think.


I don't think Rebecca was condemning the oil and gas industry and hoping it would dry up and blow away, Wild Places. But at a time when the number of approved but unused drilling leases is extremely high, and when much of the oil and gas being produced seems to be heading off-shore (Bakken oil going to West Coast ports, Keystone XL eyeing Houston), is there a need to offer more public lands for energy development? Is there no happy medium? Is there really a need to build a 300-mile pipeline that would go UNDER the Blue Ridge Parkway along the Appalachian National Scenic Trail?

http://appalachiantrail.org/home/community/blog/ATFootpath/2017/06/14/mo...

http://www.roanoke.com/business/sen-kaine-calls-for-rehearing-of---decis...

https://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/washington/us-oil-gas-leasing-con...


Go through any photo essay about the effects on birds and other wildlife, underwater effects on the marine environment, and so forth. Spend some time this weekend, and explain to your grandkids why it is "miniscule" and explain " the massive benefits of a healthy oil and gas industry and the resulting low energy prices."   

'Piece of cake'? Obviously I erred in giving you an assignment without adult supervision. Get some of those videos of the oil rolling up on the shore, of the fish mutations, of the migratory waterfowl unable to fly. Don't just laugh and giggle with them about how blissfully uncaveman-like they are due to the wonder of the internal combustion engine and how donations from the petroleum extraction and processing companies support the regressive trogolodyte congresscritters you love. Hell, take the kids on a field trip to volunteer to hand-scrub ducks with Dove next spill.

 


Kurt, the oil and gas market is a world market.  Whether we sell it here or overseas the greater the supply the lower the cost. (BTW the US as today is still a net importer of petroleum products.)  And the less costly to extract the lower the cost as well.   Just a few years ago gas was averaging $4.00 a gallon now it is $2.50.  With the average car driving 12,000 miles per year that is a savings of $900 for every car on the road. (assuming 20mpg)  Savings for heating are even more substantial.  In 2005 natural gas was $13.42  per million BTU.  Today, it is $3.  What cost $900 a year to heat today cost $3,600 only a few years ago,  a massive savings for those that heat with natural gas (43% of homes).   Those are just two examples.  Others would include electricity (65% generated by fossil fuels) transportation of goods and people, plastics and the list goes on.  Rebecca is dead wrong when she says only the shareholders benefit.  Everyone in this and most other countries benefit from cheap energy.  


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.